Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 22, 2012 8:00pm-8:30pm PDT

8:00 pm
8:01 pm
8:02 pm
8:03 pm
8:04 pm
8:05 pm
8:06 pm
8:07 pm
8:08 pm
8:09 pm
8:10 pm
8:11 pm
>> we are moving on to item no. 7. this is also a mandatory staff- initiated discretionary review. >> good evening. michael smith, planning department staff. you have before you a mandatory request for discretionary review pursuant to section 317 of the planning code for a project proposing to construct a front and rear horizontal addition to a one-story vertical family dwelling. it would significantly alter the building's front facade and the department has deemed the project to be a demolition. the property located at 1622 11th ave. the product sponsor submitted a
8:12 pm
permit for a similar project was opposed by both adjacent neighbors. they have concerns about building scale and the modern vernacular. the project was subsequently withdrawn by the sponsor before coming to the hearing. the project before you reflexed negotiations his sponsors had with his neighbors prior to submitting the latest project. it reflects a traditional vernacular that the neighbors want and the height of the rear building was reduced to appease neighbors. that change is most evident on a sheet a7, which shows existing grade. you can see how much the building has sunk into grade. the department has received e- mails from adjacent neighbors objecting to some of the information that the sponsor has submitted for review. more specifically, they claim the property is currently tenant-occupied and it would result in tenant displacement
8:13 pm
and loss of rental housing. there are requesting the hearing be continued for this reason. the department has not had time to investigate the matter since it was brought to our attention. however, the sponsor is present to answer any questions you have related to this issue. the department also received an e-mail from an adjacent labor claiming the scale of the building at the rear when block sunlight access to her garden and that would impact her business. the department is restaurant -- is recommending to not take discretionary review and approve the project. it would result in a net gain of housing in the city and create two family-size dwelling units as well. this is my presentation. i am available for any questions or comments. thank you. president fong: project sponsor? >> good evening. i am the project architect.
8:14 pm
the design in front of you is very good and compromise to take care of the neighbors concerns. i wish you could approve the project as he recommended. thank you. >> good evening. my name is naomi kelly. my husband and his business partner purchased 1622 11th in 2003. it was taken and their objective was to renovate and occupied. at this time, our business partner moved into the room and rented our rooms during that time. rooms were rented to college students. we currently reside in a home and have been there for 16 years. we really like the sunset district and want to make 1622 11th ave. our home.
8:15 pm
the family never would be a great location for my parents to occupy one unit and my family and other current my family is here with me and my father currently lives with us. we approach our project in a way we believe were in the guidelines of the zoning code. we received neighborhood in put and planning department input. we adjusted our design and our house. we are happy to present this project before the commission with planning departments of four. i would like to address some of the concerns about the application. when my husband and his partner purchased the house in 2003, it was vacant. we are temporarily renting rooms to students. because we read to students, there are times it is completely vacant or one or two rooms or all free rooms are rented. we did not think it would be good to leave the house sitting empty for an extended period of time. we have a copy of the lease with us.
8:16 pm
as for the existing occupancy, students have set us notice they are leaving. one is leaving at the end of the week. the remaining student is leaving at the end of april or may. we have e-mails from those students. we do not plan to start construction until the students voluntarily vacate. we accept the recommendations of the planning department and are here to answer any questions. thank you. president fong: is their public comment? >> good evening. i live next door at 1618 11th ave. i would like to thank you all for your time you put in. as long day. i would like to appreciate the information that mrs. kelly provided regarding the tenants. some of the information is correct.
8:17 pm
the point where the co-owner of the property, i am not sure that person's name is melanie lock. she never moved in. i would like to present to you in the section 317 application that was presented by mr. kelly, dated december 9, 2011. you will see the number of rental units, 00. all those, at the time he submitted it, were correct. there was tenants there and they have been there. the number of occupied units the marks as one. as mrs. kelly just said, there has been three tenants there for
8:18 pm
several months now. another occupier -- the owner has never actually physically lived in the property. i would like the planning department to take the information that has been uncovered that was not presented to the neighbors before this. i found it by looking at the agenda online and clicking through the pdf on page 20. all of that section 317 application is for the planning department takes their recommendation, saying no tenants will be displaced. furthermore, with rent protection, it is not eligible for re control because it is currently vacant. i do not understand why the project -- the owners could have been more forthcoming in an accurate view of what is going on with the property so the
8:19 pm
planning department could adequately assess the situation and make sure it complies with the rent control. i would like the commission to recommend the planning department to do their due diligence with this project and bring it back to do what they have to do. thank you very much. i do look forward to having the family moved in and be my neighbors. thank you. president fong: is there additional public comment? >> good evening. i live next door to the building at 1618. i have a garden design business and i use my back yard as a showcase for clients. i am just concerned about the lighting and how it would seriously affect my garden and my business. i would like to have a lighting
8:20 pm
review, a lighting study, and i have requested that. i would like to work with the kelly family. i think they're going to be good neighbors. we are just hoping that these concerns are addressed about the tenants and possibly affecting my garden in business. i am very concerned about the lighting. i am not sure why the building has to be 3000 square feet. my family and i live next door and we are living in a 1400 square feet of living space. i am concerned about the size ability. i know they have adjusted it a bit but i am still concerned about it blocking the sunlight. thank you. president fong: any additional public comment? commissioner borden. commissioner borden: she is the next-door neighbor. what is the yard's size? what is the distance between the
8:21 pm
yeard -- the yards? >> she is the property to the north. commissioner borden: i think we have a compliance. >> her lot is the same size as the subject. commissioner borden: great. looking at this, it is actually a very reasonable project. it is regrettable that there was a mistake on the application and it did not truly reflect the tendency at the time. the basis for the motion -- for the recommendation actually has not to do with that. the basis for recommendation is related to the net gain of dwelling units. there is a line about no displacement of tense. i think they have explained the situation. if they were in violation, the
8:22 pm
rent board would be the ones to deal with that. we do not have jurisdiction over that period that is not something the planning commission could take up. that would not be a reason for us to continue it. from the planning process, the fact that we are in a net gain of a unit is a benefit to the city's overall housing. you could argue if there were any displacements that one canceled out the other. i think it is great the way every design the building in a way that is more respectful to the neighbors and are going even lower, which is a big imposition. in terms of the light and air, i am not sure that i see what the neighbors' concerns are here. it looks like they're back yard is in a nice open space along the lines of the properties. unless other people oppose, i would move to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed.
8:23 pm
commissioner antonini: i agree. i think this is very well done and it shows what -- in 2003, the neighbors interacted with the new owners. in terms of design. i think this is extremely contextual, a very good looking design. it is very cleverly designed to have two family sized units by having a town house on the first floor and a full unit on the upper. it accommodates good-sized units. yes, 2841 square feet means each unit is about 1400 square feet. there are nice-sized units but they are not huge. the hike is only 2610 in a 40- foot area. i think this is a really good project.
8:24 pm
>> the motion on the floor is to not a discretionary review. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president wu: aye. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. you are now on item #8. 62 collingwood street. >> good evening. the proposal is to legalize the implication of a triple-pain, and double on aluminum windows. they are all located on the second level. the existing structure will not be enlarged by the request. the property is locating -- the
8:25 pm
department has concluded it is these of from review and the residents reviewed the projects following the fall it -- following the filing of the d.r. they found the project to be consistent with the residential design guidelines. they found the proposed window type and material are for writ. the department also found the windows consistent with the department guidelines and secretary of interior standards. the project does not contain any extraordinary circumstance. on july of 2011, the planning department's determined that work was being done without the 311 notification in regards to this most recent work. by the time the complaint was received, a significant amount of work had already been completed.
8:26 pm
and the windows had been installed. therefore, the planning department has determined that the new windows to not create a significant adverse impact. the department finds the product does not demonstrate an exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and that the planning commission should not take discretionary review. this concludes my presentation. president fong: d.r. requester? >> pahor -- good evening. i owned the lower unit. i have been there for 15 years. my neighbor moved in in 2006. one year later, she installed new windows, aluminum-clad windows into her unit. the building, at the time, had a non-original aluminum windows that were installed in the 1970's, both in the top and bottom units.
8:27 pm
that was the existing conditions that we are considering here. both units had non-original aluminum windows. currently, the planning department has two permits under review. this is one of them and the other is my permit for wood windows in the lower unit. the question is, what is more appropriate for this building? the lower unit having wood windows, original detailing, a historic profile, or should we have the aluminum-clad windows at the top? clearly, from reviewing these standards, it would be far more appropriate to help would windows. it is undeniable. we are going to go through those standards in a moment. briefly, last week, this was heard as a matter of continuance
8:28 pm
at the board of appeals last week. there was some talk about how beautiful the window -- how beautiful the windows are on the inside. we are here today to talk about how they look on the outside. this is what we have at 62 collingwood. this is what i look at. the reason that you do not see this on our street is because 50% of the windows on collingwood street are would. -- are wood. that is because the residence on our block follow the rules, respect each other, and follow along. -- follow the law.
8:29 pm
i do not think this is the permit orders fall. i am not pointing any fingers. i will explain that in a moment. this is the drawing i would like to show you. the windows that i -- that are proposed for the upper unit are right here. this is the historical the accurate wooden windows i am proposing for my unit. the question is, what is the opprobrium when no here? what is more appropriate? if we were to let both of these permits stand, the planning department has allowed windows that will create a mixed voskhod. a mixed, in cohesive facades. i do not think that is fair. i just do not think that is fair. so, going through the standards, the first point we

101 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on